Grijalba v. Floro, 431 N.J. Super. 57

Plaintiff slipped on ice on a sidewalk abutting Floro’s property and sustained a bimalleolar fracture.
Floro owned a two-family house, originally occupying one unit, with the basement unoccupied, and rented the other unit.
Floro relocated to the basement allegedly to rent out two units and increase income; the date and duration of occupancy are disputed.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing owner-occupied two- to three-family properties are residential for sidewalk liability under Stewart.
The trial court granted summary judgment relying on Luchejko and related authorities, denying liability for the Ice condition.
Plaintiff appeals arguing the decision did not properly apply the residential-commercial distinction and that a remand with a predominant-use analysis was warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Floro’s property is residential or commercial for sidewalk liability.	Floro’s use suggests commercial; owner-occupant but business use dominates.	Property is residential under established rule for owner-occupied two-family homes.	Remand for full fact-specific residential-commercial classification.
Whether Smith creates a bright-line rule for owner-occupied two- or three-family homes.	Smith does not establish a bright-line rule; predominant use must be assessed.	Smith supports a residential classification in typical owner-occupied two-family scenarios.	Not a bright-line rule; case-by-case analysis required.
What factors govern the residential-commercial classification on remand.	Court should apply predominant use and profit considerations to classify the property.	Classification should be based on ownership/use under a balancing framework.	Remand instructed to evaluate ownership nature, predominant use, income capacity, and other relevant factors.
Should the court apply the Multiple Dwellings Act or other statutory duties on remand.	Statutory duty to maintain may apply to hotels/multiple dwellings.	No sufficient merit to discuss appeal on this ground.	Without merit; affirmed remand on classification, declined further discussion on the Act.

Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc., 87 N.J. 146, 432 A.2d 881 (1981) (commercial landowners have duty to maintain sidewalks)
Mirza v. Filmare Corp., 92 N.J. 390, 456 A.2d 518 (1983) (expanded sidewalk duty to commercial properties)
Luchejko v. City of Hoboken, 207 N.J. 191, 23 A.3d 912 (2011) (case-by-case residential/commercial distinction; no bright-line rule)
Dupree v. City of Clifton, 175 N.J. 449, 815 A.2d 960 (2003) (use-focused approach to nonprofit property classification)
Restivo v. Church of Saint Joseph of the Palisades, 306 N.J. Super. 458, 703 A.2d 997 (1998) (uses and occupancy influence residential-commercial analysis)
Avallone v. Mortimer, 252 N.J. Super. 434, 599 A.2d 1304 (1999) (partial owner-occupancy requires balancing costs and residential exception)
Smith v. Young, 300 N.J. Super. 82, 692 A.2d 76 (1997) (distinguished residential vs. commercial in co-owner contexts)
Brown v. St. Venantius Sch., 111 N.J. 325, 544 A.2d 842 (1988) (defines commercial vs. residential for nonprofit use cases)
Borges v. Named, 247 N.J. Super. 295, 589 A.2d 169 (1991) (partially occupied multi-family dwellings analyzed for residential status)